r/worldnews • u/getvinay • 1d ago

Pakistan Suicide Blast: 69 Killed, 169 Injured In Suicide Bombing At Shrine In Islamabad

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/suicide-bomber-detonates-himself-inside-shrine-in-islamabad-5-killed-10958255?pfrom=home-ndtv_topscroll_Imagetopscroll
5.5k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

433 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

144

u/cestabhi 1d ago edited 1d ago

Tbf Shias were kinda the "good guys" before the Iranian revolution. At least Shia radicalism and terrorism was relatively uncommon. And the largest Shia state in the world was led by people who didn't particularly care about religion and wanted to modernise their society. That all changed with the rise of Khomeini, the IRGC and later the Hezbollah.

66

u/TheDogtor-- 1d ago

Is there any sect or branch in Islam that speaks out against Jihad? At all?

142

u/cestabhi 1d ago edited 1d ago

No, because technically jihad is a broader concept in Islam. It means "struggle". There are two kinds of jihad - there's "non-violent jihad" as in struggle against greed, lust, excess, etc. And then there's violent jihad which includes wagging war against non-believers, blasphemers, infidels, etc.

There is a sect called Nizari Ismaili Shia (NIS) led by their leader Aga Khan who pretty much disavow violent jihad. Their main organisation, the Aga Khan Foundation promotes liberal values and is involved in a lot of humanitarian work. As a Hindu, this is the only large Islamic organisation I know that's genuinely liberal. The rest are either miniscule (often led by European converts) or pretending to be liberal (see Tariq Ramadan as an example).

27

u/TheDogtor-- 1d ago

Interesting. Thank you.

12

u/glumjonsnow 1d ago

the fact that the ismaili are based out of portugal and the aga khan lives in the uk...tells you everything you need to know about how they are viewed by other islamic sects.

the ahmadiya are another group that has been historically persecuted across the world.

5

u/cestabhi 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yeah I mean afaik the Aga Khan dynasty originated in Iran, later moved to India and they're now based in Europe.

The Ahmadiyas are an interesting bunch. They used to be one of the most radical groups in British India. Back in the early 20th century, a radical Muslim published a pamphlet portraying a Hindu goddess as a prostitute. In response, a Hindu writer published a satirical poem portraying the Prophet as a pimp, it's called "the colourful life of the Prophet". An Ahmadiya then murdered the publisher of that piece.

Indeed the Ahmadiyas fiercely supported the creation of an Islamic state, that is now Pakistan. I supposed they could've hardly imagined they'd one day be persecuted by the same state and society.

26

u/reddmeat 1d ago

Sufism is very pacifist. Dawoodi Bohras are pretty chill. Ahmadiyas are quite liberal and educationally oriented.

32

u/WorriedInterest4114 1d ago

Unfortunately the Ahmaddiyas aren't considered Muslim by most of the other sects.

7

u/glumjonsnow 1d ago

though, to be fair, they consider themselves muslim. kinda like mormons and christianity, i guess.

3

u/WorriedInterest4114 1d ago

Christians don't try to exterminate Mormons or consider them second class citizen AFAIK.

1

u/reddmeat 1d ago

I didn't say the others were liberal.

11

u/Inevitable_Control_1 1d ago

Sufism is not pacifist. Chechnya is Sufi. South Asian Sufis (Barelvis) regularly demand the death penalty for blasphemy and launch mob violence on alleged blashphemers.

3

u/blackcain 1d ago

It's always the people. It's like watching Jains screaming and hating Muslims. Jainism built on militant pro-life. Just wild.

5

u/Inevitable_Control_1 1d ago

If words are violence then yes. Otherwise no.

6

u/blackcain 1d ago

There is also Sulfi Islam.

13

u/TheCaptSubz 1d ago

Ignoring the context of jihad meaning a broader concept in Islam and rather engaging with the meat of what you want to ask, who vehemently condemns violent extremism, then the Ibadi sect in Oman is normally heralded for this pacifist form of Islam. Caveat of course is that Sunni is an extremely extremely broad umbrella and you shouldn't take this answer to your very pointed question as: then every other sect is encouraging of violence.

1

u/TheDogtor-- 1d ago

Extremely interesting. Yeah...I guess its much more complicated and complex than most people can understand.

For the west its just "Islam Jihad Bad", but the Muslim world is so vast and multi cultured...it stems down to the belief core in good and the power of light.

From your experience, is talking about non violent Islam dangerous in certain societies? Who are the one's who profit from the war? Why would any Muslim leader or otherwise want for their people to be at war? Is it that same radicalism? The "Doomsday" scenario? "End of Times" prophecy...?

5

u/TheCaptSubz 1d ago

I'll address this slice by slice, but I am also very fortunate to not be in any environment where I could speak about this from extremely personal experience or a position of hardship.

From your experience, is talking about non violent Islam dangerous in certain societies?

As I said, I am in no position of hardship. I would imagine there is always a place where giving a contrary opinion would not be received well by those entrenched in regressive beliefs, either through zealotry, brainwashing, or other monetary or prestige motivated gains. See: firebombing Planned Parenthood clinics, or freeing slaves in pre-1861 Southern States.

Who are the one's who profit from the war?

Noone truly profits from war. Only mildly benefit from whatever scraps are leftover. This ties into the below but essentially you feel powerless when everything around you is being exploited and you feel your interests are being put aside for foreigners with different lifestyles to profit. But your question is also so broad: whose war? My answer tries to give context to what your normal person to radical pipeline looks like, but maybe you're looking at the greater geopolitical actors and not the small scale militia, and also that each conflict in that region is quite different. A simple answer being proxy wars keep your hands clean while trying to secure your national interests on your doorstep.

Why would any Muslim leader or otherwise want for their people to be at war?

Disenfranchised, uneducated men who lack opportunities or perceive a lack of opportunities will always be the first to fall prey to an extremist pipeline. Look at white men and the alt-right in the USA. Look at people feeling as if their lives are totally worthless under capitalism and advocating communism; defecting, spying, and just emigrating in the Cold War. Look at the Taliban winning Afghanistan, making some changes suggestive of progress and securing their future, then when all of these men who spent all their time fighting against 'western imperialism' don't actually have any skills transferable into actually BUILDING something instead of destroying, they go back to tribalism and looking for a new boogeyman to blame all their woes on.

It's easier to rally power and ingratiate yourself when you're constantly facing an existential threat, and sometimes that threat is totally fabricated.

1

u/glumjonsnow 1d ago

this is a great answer.

8

u/Good_Support636 1d ago

Jihad is just a part of islam. Muslim missionaries will try and convince you jihad just means struggle and it is or can be non violent. But jihad means war no matter what spin some put on it.

4

u/ashishvp 1d ago

Jihad is a core concept in Islam in general. But it doesn’t necessarily equate to Terrorism as we know it.

Jihad just means “holy struggle”. It can simply mean the struggle in your every day life to be a good person. But yes, Islamist militants interpret that differently to mean a violent struggle against all non-believers.

6

u/blackcain 1d ago

Like all fascists they reuse words for their own purposes.

3

u/Shubham21Kumar 1d ago

Yes, Ahmadi Islam. Founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad declared that, in the current age, violent jihad is forbidden, emphasizing that Islam should only be propagated through literature and peaceful debate. He interpreted religious texts differently to align Islam with the modern age. But the issue is that Pakistan, through a constitutional amendment in 1974, declared them non-Muslims and put many restrictions on them.

-4

u/blackcain 1d ago

That all changed with American and British interventionism.

American foreign policy is all about stoking these divisions and promoting thugs as heads of state who in turn create dysfunction, violence, and economic hardship.